Chronology |
Current Month |
Current Thread |
Current Date |

[Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |

*From*: Ludwik Kowalski <KowalskiL@MAIL.MONTCLAIR.EDU>*Date*: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 22:25:04 -0500

Chuck Britton wrote:

A fairly common misconception is that 'most' of the charge will

collect on the more sharply curved surface, (needle tip). A closer

analysis will indeed show that the charge DENSITY is quite large on

the highly curved surface, but the small area involved does NOT lead

to a preponderance of charge being on the tip. Corona discharge has

been ruled out in this discussion of an 'isolated' object. Lightning

rod tips are NOT isolated and do indeed exhibit coronal discharge.

I am willing to accept this. If this is true then the cylinder

approximation (with three well defined surfaces) makes

sense to me.

Can somebody answer this question? Suppose the electrified

object is like a pear. Or more exactly it is a set of two spherical

segments connected smoothly with a truncated cone. Let the

left segment have R1=20 cm, the right segment R2=5 cm and

the distance between the centers of segments 30 cm. There is

nothing special about this geometry; it is an illustration.

We all known that concentration of charges will be higher on

the right "pole" than on the left "pole". But how many times

larger? Factor of 4? Factor of 16? Neither of the above? Is

there any rule of thumb about this?

Ludwik Kowalski

- Prev by Date:
**Re: Charged disk; was electrostatic ...** - Next by Date:
**Re: Charged disk; was electrostatic ...** - Previous by thread:
**Re: Charged disk; was electrostatic ...** - Next by thread:
**Re: Charged disk; was electrostatic ...** - Index(es):